Selimaj received a letter from former President Bill Clinton's lawyer, Douglas J. Band, this week, asking the restaurateur to remove the photo from an outside menu case because Chelsea, "a private citizen," never gave permission to have it displayed there.

The letter was stamped on top with a gold presidential seal and the letterhead Office of William Jefferson Clinton....

Selimaj said if he takes the photo down, it would set a bad precedent for all the pictures he has taken with bold-face names.

Posting photographs like this is a longstanding restaurant practice. Are we really supposed to believe it's suddenly a tort?

The legal letter has now joined the photo in the display case.

Ha ha. I'll have to stop by and look at that. Let's all eat at Nino's restaurants and show some support for the small businessman whom a former President has seen fit to harass with a rude letter on stationery with the presidential seal.

The restaurant owner's actions likely violate Chelsea Clinton's "right of publicity." This right is recognized in one or another form by most states, but for our purposes the specific law is N.Y. Civil Rights Law § 51, which gives any person the right to sue over unauthorized use of her "name, portrait, picture or voice ... used within this state for advertising purposes or for the purposes of trade without ... written consent." Here, it looks like the photo is being used for promoting the restaurant to its customers, which makes it "purposes of trade" or perhaps even "advertising purposes."

There are an awful lot of restaurants who do this. Are they all subject to tort suits? It's not as if the restaurant is using her in an ad. It's the decor of the restaurant. It seems to me that if someone eats in a restaurant that follows a tradition of posting photos of celebrities who ate in the restaurant and posed with the owner and then one goes ahead and poses for a photograph with the owner, one implies consent to have the photo hung on the wall along with the other photos pursuant to the tradition.

But Eugene notes that "New York law -- unlike the law in many other states -- provides that consent to use one's name or likeness for advertising or trade must be given in writing." I'd argue that this is a reason to narrowly construe what counts as a use for "purposes of trade."

Eugene also notes that there is a 1 year statute of limitations. The picture has been there for 5 years, according to the press reports.

Eugene also thinks that "failing to remove Chelsea's picture is pretty rude," but it's important to note that Chelsea herself has not said a word to the Selimaj. He got a letter written on behalf of "President Clinton," and he has said he'll take the picture down if he hears from her.

What is rude is posing for a picture under those circumstances and then not expressing your objection in a friendly way. And what's really sickening is to intimidate a small business owner with an ugly letter from a man who is parading pseudo-governmental authority about a private legal matter on presidential stationery.

I certainly think, however, that Selimaj should respond to a cordial request cordially and, as a matter of good business and ordinary manners, shouldn't want to do something to one of his guests that the guest perceives as abusive.

According to https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/attorney/AttorneySearchDouglas Band is not licensed to practice in New York State.I wonder what New York's penalty for the unauthorized practice of law is.

"I agree with the Drill Sgt. Sounds like an over-zealous staffer. Probably someone who did not like their meal there, to boot."

It's always some underling who's responsible for everything. But the best solution would be for Chelsea to send him a big bouquet of flowers with a note saying that she adores Nino and his restaurant and is charmed that he saw fit to put her photo on his wall.

Looks like it's traditional for former presidents to use the eagle logo from the seal on their letter head.

What I want to know is, how long can they call themselves "President?" I thought the convention was "former President," but the Clinton letter to the restaurant describes him as President Clinton. Miss Manners says that's a no-no:

I'm not a lawyer, but I'd be willing to bet that use of the seal (or whatever they call the eagle/shield interior) is a right granted former presidents, similar to the way that former govenors are still afforded the title "Govenor". Also, looking through the CFR linked, it seems that the this usage would constitute a violation only if the intent was to create the impression that removing the picture was the official US government position. While it would certainly not be less silly or important than some other official US government positions, I can't honestly say the letter creates that impression.

Hmm, you know, maybe times have changed since Miss Manners' etiquette books are published, but it is my understanding that an ex-POTUS is properly addressed as President <so-and-so>. But I would definitely be interested to learn otherwise.

Sydney, you are correct. While many titles are retained after leaving office (e.g. Govenor, Senator), the office of President is specifically unique in that only one person at a time is ever entitled to refer to themselves as "President". My guess is that in Govenor Clinton's office his hubris and ego combine with sycophantic adoration and hero worship to create a circumstance where he is commonly referred to as "President Clinton", hence the off-hand use of the phrase in the signature line.

And to think about all the trouble I have with the staff around here just calling me "High Potentate and Enabler of Mysteries."

Uhm, if Ms. Clinton doesn't wish pictures of herself standing next to an average citizen to be displayed, perhaps she shouldn't pose for them? (Am I missing something here?) And since when do you need "permission" for such a thing, anyway?

"But the best solution would be for Chelsea to send him a big bouquet of flowers with a note saying that she adores Nino and his restaurant and is charmed that he saw fit to put her photo on his wall."

I agree, but if Giulliani is smart he can turn this to his advantage. If he gets there first and does roughly the same thing (maybe even offering to sign his picture) he can show how much he supports small business/the little guy/legal immigrants/whatever. After that, anything the Clintons try to do to control this will look like they are responding to him.

When I first heard of this yesterday, I wondered why Bill was involved in this at all. Chelsea is an adult and it's her picture, not his.

Then I heard that the picture has been in the window of the restaurant for five years. That's a long time without a peep.

When Chelsea consented to a picture with the owner of a restaurant, she will have known that the photo would be displayed. She is not stupid and restaurants display pictures of famous patrons all the time. I, myself, have seen a photo of Bill Clinton at Maggiano's in Chicago. He knew that photo would be displayed.

As much as Bill and Hill would like to continue sheltering Chelsea, she is an adult and she is famous by virture of her parents. If her parents really wanted to shelter her they wouldn't have picked such high profile careers...

Hmm, you know, maybe times have changed since Miss Manners' etiquette books are published, but it is my understanding that an ex-POTUS is properly addressed as President so-and-so. But I would definitely be interested to learn otherwise.

Actually, Miss Manners' books are where I learned that an ex-POTUS resumes using the title of the highest ranking job he held prior to office, with some exceptions. Clinton is properly called Governor Clinton, now.

The exceptions that come into play are when the previous office held is like the Presidency or Vice Presidency, in that only one person holds it. There are many Governors, or Senators, but only one V.P. Or, like George H.W. Bush, one Director of the CIA. 41's proper title is Ambassador.

Ms. Manners--whom I personally love to read--may be right on the technical protocol. She is wrong, however, on the practice.

Former Presidents are called 'Mr. President', when there is not chance of confusion with the sitting President. If two or more including the current president, are at the same function, then 'President X' is used for former office holders, and 'Mr. President' is used for the sitting president.

I know this because I have had to deal with the protocol of current and former Presidents, singling and in combination, in formal, government affairs.

When Chelsea consented to a picture with the owner of a restaurant, she will have known that the photo would be displayed.

Apparently (according to the Volokh Conspiracy, at least) New York law requires that *written* permission be obtained before using a person's image for commercial purposes. If true, that would mean that Chelsea's within her rights to demand the picture be removed, even if she knew he planned to hang it on the wall when she posed for it.

You're right, I missed that it was outside. I just inserted my own experience of going to those restaurants with pictures all over the inside walls. That does make a difference as far as promotion is concerned---to me at least, though maybe not to a lawyer.

mcg: The article also says the letter has joined the photo in the "display case" (end of the article). Other photos I've seen show it on an easel with menus in a window. It doesn't seem to be "outside" the restaurant, just not on the "back wall" inside...

Can a picture taken with the owner of a restaurant imply that the person in the picture endorses the restaurant? The now closed local Polish restaurant here had a picture of the owner with Pope John-Paul II -- I don't think anyone would assume the Pope endorsed the food.

Plus -- whatever happened to Amy Carter? Maybe Nino could get her picture for the restaurant.

"How sad it is! I shall grow old, and horrid, and dreadful. But this picture will remain always young. It will never be older than this particular day of June. . . . If it was only the other way! If it was I who were to be always young, and the picture that were to grow old! For this--for this--I would give everything! Yes, there is nothing in the whole world I would not give!"(The Picture of Dorian Gray)

I'm also thinking that there is a difference between displaying such a photo on an interior wall and displaying it on the outside window. It may not count as a legal difference, but all of the restaurant celeb photos I've ever seen have been on interior walls.

I am remembering the hubub when Bush 41 apparently didn't know about how a product scanner in a grocery store worked and how it was explained away as possible given his life style at the time.

Then I try to imagine if Chelsea and President Clinton could have led such a sheltered existence as to not know that posing with a restaurant owner means it will be posted in or around the place of business. I can't imagine that. I'm still not convinced of its legitimacy (have I missed something?) but if legit, its a stupid fight to pick, no matter its legal validity. I reserve the right to change my mind as that facts warrent, such as to preserve my need to feel superior.

Except that teh Bush/scanner story was debunked quite a while ago. The truth, though, has never served to abase those wanting to make hay from a false story from doing so, especially when it involves the political.

The Beach House in Corpus Christi takes photos of its customers too, and displays them prominently in the public lounge. Walking in you'd think you were in an Italian restaurante or something. :) Eva Longoria was their most recent "find". Vicki Carr, Robert Wagner, and Jill St. John were some other choice favorites. Careful where you stay in Corpus, Chelsea!

Ann, I still think you are too quickly assuming that the letter is genuine. Who is benefiting from all this publicity? Have you seen this restaurant owner on the local news. I get a very bad vibe about him. And he's in the toughest business in NY.

Don't let your instinct to smack down an often preening ex-president overwhelm your good sense.

For me, I'm going to sit on the sidelines until we hear from the Clinton compound.

submandave or I should say "High Potentate and Enabler of Mysteries.": Yeah I seem to recall it was debunked but regardless, it was speculated he could have been so out of it, to not know. Of course most people scoffed at that.

So I don't buy the, she let the picture get taken without knowing how it would be used, explanation. Sniff sniff, nope

Ann says, referring to the lawyer who sent the letter: "a man who is parading pseudo-governmental authority about a private legal matter on presidential stationery."

While "pseudo-governmental authority" is a pretty vague thing to be "parading," this still seems a bit of a stretch. Former presidents are provided an office at government expense. As others have noted, they are routinely addressed with the honoric "Mr. President", just as former ambassadors, judges and even the stray colonel are addressed with those titles after they have left office. But former presidents like former colonels hold no governmental office and exercise no governmental powers; they are just private citizens. To say that the lawyer was trying to parade "pseudo-governmental authority" suggests that his intention was to trick the restaurant owner into thinking that as "counsel to President Clinton," the lawyer was speaking with some special governmental authority. Sounds unlikely to me. He was just trying to impress and maybe intimidate, but not with any "pseudo-governmental authority."

Instead, I think you could more accurately accuse the lawyer of "parading pseudo-parental authority" here. Ms. Chelsea is an adult, and can object if she wants to. Clinton in his role as daddy has no standing; even less does any "counsel to President Clinton."

Some suggest that the lawyer was acting on his own. That strikes me as the least likely scenario; lawyers just don't send cease-and-desist letters on their own. Much more likely is that he got an express instruction to send the letter. Doesn't the peremptory tone of the lawyer's letter remind you of, say, the ever-so-friendly personality behind the firing of the travel staff in the Clinton White House? That suggests to me that, if this is a case of "parading pseudo-parental authority," the parent trying to exercise the "pseudo" wasn't him but her (you know, the Senatress, who would like to acquire the seal that this guy was using half of).

Metro Contract Attorneys Weblog said..."Wow, now I remember what heavy-handed, scorched-earth, Clinton politics are like. A 24-hour war room full of spin-meisters. Do we really want 4 or 8 years of this junk?"

Have you read any quotes from Bill or Hillary regarding this?

And, speaking of "scorched earth"...are you familiar with what's going on in...Iraq?

Well, I'm standing here at the restaurant looking at the picture of Nino and Chelsea and I don't see why Bill is in such a huff, it's just a picture...wait a minute...wait a minute... is that Norman Hsu standing right behind them?!

I've eaten in this restaurant. Withholding judgment about the quality of the food, I'll add that I don't recall a display of photographs of patrons and given the size of the restaurant's street frontage, there's almost certainly not a display of photographs outside the restaurant. I can swing by the place tomorrow and check it out.

I responded to your "off-topic" comment about the Clintons...as in: "Wow, now I remember what heavy-handed, scorched-earth, Clinton politics are like. A 24-hour war room full of spin-meisters. Do we really want 4 or 8 years of this junk?"

Duh.

And I also stated: "I'm not sure whether you can display a picture of anyone, much less someone of Chelsea's stature, without their permission."

Sidney Falco: He thinks JJ's some kind of a monster... Susan Hunsecker: Don't you? Sidney Falco: Susie, JJ happens to be one of my very best friends! Susan Hunsecker: I know. But someday I'd like to look into your clever little mind and see what you really think of him. Sidney Falco: Where do you come off, making a remark like that? Susan Hunsecker: Who could love a man who makes you jump through burning hoops like a trained poodle? (Sweet Smell of Success)

"Douglas Band" is on no list of lawyers that I can find. Although I did find out that Hillary's Arkansas law license appears to have been suspended in 2002 for lack of CLE. So, right now there are no licensed lawyers in the family.

Metro Contract Attorneys Weblog said... When Chelsea Clinton posed for the picture, she was authorizing its use in the restaurant

Unless she signed a waiver of sorts, I don't see how you could ever prove she gave any "authorization" of anything. Maybe it was doctored, or altered. Maybe someone drew an arrow to it with the word "c***t*. The only reason I brought it up it is, well I think you might be a lawyer and I would think that there are a thousands reasons why someone could object to a photo of themselves in a public display.

former law student said..."Douglas Band" is on no list of lawyers that I can find. Although I did find out that Hillary's Arkansas law license appears to have been suspended in 2002 for lack of CLE. So, right now there are no licensed lawyers in the family."

WOOOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!

And you wonder why you're a "former" law student and presently a janitor?

Tully, I posted on this yesterday too (hours before you did, actually).

As to the outside case vs. the wall of photos. The original letter says "front window." The article linked yesterday says wall. I agree that the actual placement of the picture has some relevance, but I reserve the right to make any legal arguments that may be available.

SteveR: "but if legit, its a stupid fight to pick, no matter its legal validity."

Yes, this is a key point I've been stressing in both posts. There is a difference between the law on the books and the law in action. Normal people don't pursue claims like this. The disruption of real human relationships makes it not worth it.

LOS -- don't you remember? Bill currently can't practice law, either. Something about lying under oath. And Chelsea did not go to law school. So there are no licensed lawyers in the Rodham-Clinton family at present.

January 17, 2006After five years of banishment from the legal profession, President Clinton will be eligible this week to reclaim the law license he gave up as a consequence of the inaccurate responses he gave under oath to questions about his relationship with a White House intern.

Preliminarily, I mention the Hezi Aris' radio show on WVOX, New Rochelle.On Tuesday,9-25-07,I called Hezi's show ( Ken Jenkins,the Democratic Party Leader in Yonkers and Zehry Jereis,the Republican Party leader were on his show) and it went something like this : Hezi answered with " Good morning ",I said " Hi Hezi, I'd like to speak with Ken " and Hezi said " Sorry Tom..." and I was cut off. The show said that he had the right to refuse callers,so..... He probably feels that my calls take away from the way he plans his shows to go and, he being very good, is probablyright - so I dont hold it against him. However,had he not cut me off,I would have asked my very good -and old- friend Ken Jenkins the following question.... and silence would probably have descended on Hezi's show as everybody tried to digest my question : " Hey Ken, you know I used to be a Republican District Leader until I refused to back the Party Line (supporting Liam McLoughlin for City Council over someone else) and they threw me out. But with the Democrats,when will they ever realise that a woman is far better off at home with her children ? "

As for obesity,junk food and brand recognition and my analysis of the article (taken from The Westchester Times Tribune [p.7,9-19-07] ), I state that this, too, is an example of how feminism's pernicious doctrines (under the mantra of good intentions) have let immorality (in the sense of excessive stress on the individual and selfish side of the morality equation and a consequent diminishing of the communal side) destroy the Western (and American) world ( see also jyi #416).( As an aside , I mention an article from The Journal News ( 7-5-05,I think) in which it was written " Federal programs do little to prevent obesity...(and) poverty leads to eating junkfoods,such as McDonalds..." )

The article,as exerpted :

" The Fast Food Industry's Intent on turning Teenagers and Toddlers Alike Into Fast Food Junkies By Michael Torchia . The data shows today that...children are unhappier* than any generation of the postwar era....incommercial television ...in school... after school...they are bombarded by ads for burgers, ice-creams, chocolate or brightlycolored water... The ads move fast...Advertisers love the idea of breaking into what psychologists call the educable moment (at and in schools) - that precious second when a child is reading or playing and so is at their most receptive....Meanwhile, childhood obesityhas tripled in the past 25 years. Nearly 15% of American children between 6 and 19 are overweight; 6% are obese. For the first time, children are being diagnosedwith type 2-diabetes, a disease previously thought to be confinedto adults,over-40s. Last year,the government floated a possible ban on the TV advertising of junk food - so-called HFSS foods, or products high in fat, salt or sugar - before 9pm. The proposal was dropped just before the election.But the question has not gone away. On the contrary, consumer activists predict that the promotion of unhealthy food to kids, and the wider issue of marketing to children altogether, could soon become detrimental to the health of our nation. Its estimated that 3 in 4 overweight children will become fat adults and will suffer from obesity. ... Others anticipate a larger movement, one that makes the business of selling to kids as controversial - and unpopular - as the selling of tobacco. They point to the survey by the National Family and Parenting Institute which found that no fewer than 84% of parents believe there is too much marketing aimed at children. Are they right? And if the danger is real, what can be done about it? Smart people are happy people. Feeding children fresh fruits is a much smarter choice than feeding them cookies and candy as treats.... the average grown man needs about 2,700 calories per day and the average woman needs about 2,000 per day to maintain their weight. One McDonalds lunch ...can use up that allotment and then some ( 15,000 = calories)... The fast food chains' jingles are embedded in our memories since childhood and trigger our cravings for those unhealthy types of food. That says two useful things. First,that advertising really does have an impact on the juvenile brain, one that can last for decades. Second, that using TV and the internet to persuade kids to buy things, including sweets, is not new. The inducements that stir such controversy now are hardly new either.... There needs to be change in how fast food companies advertise the food lines so not to breed a future generation of children psychologically conditioned to eat junk food! " * also a function of the immorality -amorality- of feminism

3) Repentence ( renewal, change ) / morality :

Everything I write herein is related to morality,religion,history,feminism,dreams,expectations,rights (individual and communal)...and is based on articles in The Westchester Times Tribune ( 9-19-07,p.3 ) and The New York Times ( p. F1, 9-18-07 ) AND on the realities of the present day. And my conclusion is that we all have to work together to ensure the survival of the human race. After I spoke to the Westchester County Board of Legislators (see jyi # 416),Legislator Tom Abinanti came up to me and said : " That was unjustified...", that my criticism of Feminism and the female legislators was " uncalled for ". So I told him the truth,that " I'm trying to make the world a better place ". First off, I'll discuss my understanding of morality, religion, politics and the realities of today. In actual fact, morality is concerned with rights and duties, freedoms and responsibilities. And there are two poles : individual rights and freedoms due to us from the community and individual duties and responsibilities that we owe to the community. So the community owes us and we owe the community. And, in the nature of things, any excessive stress at either end of the spectrum is not good -and could be catastrophic. As an example,I note the horrors feminism is responsible for in the West (excessive stress on individual rights) and terrorism in the Middle East and worldwide ( excessive stress on the communal -by such as Osama bin Laden or the non-productive bombast and intransigence of such as Iran's President Ahmadinejad ). On the individual side of the spectrum, we have 1) do no physical harm and 2) do as you would be done to by others, while, on the communal side, we have 3) loyalty to the in-group/ way of thinking ( not in a derogatory sense ) and 4) respect for those above and care for those below. And these are simple rules that everyone -worldwide- agrees to. But the 5th principle about morality concerns "purity" and "sanctity" -or the ways the first four rules of morality are implemen- ted. And here we have big problems,world-wide. For the implementing rules are different for each group, people, tribe, nation...Indeed,in their nature,they resemble what is called in the West "Obsessive Com-pulsive Disorder" or OCD. For they are internal rules that direct our responses to certain outside triggers that are so bound to our self-identities that we are near- powerless to change them on our own. And, further, it is only in maturity that we might be able to see whether and how to change them. Unfortunately, the planet earth is becoming too small to allow the world's peoples to mature sufficiently to so assess and modify these OCD-like reactions. For here we are concerned with discipline and self-discipline. Morale is centrally relevant to politics because it is a people's morale that enables them to join together as a group,nation..., to act as one and to triumph.But morale is based on morality and morals, those implementing rules that allow people to work together by controlling excess or rampant selfishness. Of course, no one is perfect, everyone has to "grow up" and mature and we need time and room to do so. Unfortunately,the human race has nearly run out of time and room/space. As a relevant aside, I mention the fact that unless the human race survives, all this talk about morality -or anything else- means nothing. So I posit a 4-part system comprising 1) survival, 2) contentment/comparison..., 3) motion/change/the 'eternal' present and 4) the 3 'P's :prostitution, pornography and polygamy.And I say that unless we (1) survive,nothing else matters -for us; that almost everything human occurs on the (2) contentment level. That, because we become "human" when we emerge on the (2) contentment level, we exist in opposition to -yet within- the (3) motion/change/ 'eternal' present level. And that men and women, equally essential to life, its future and its present living, are different.That women do not see as men can see -although they see far more than men. And, for that reason,feminism and all its derivatives must fade away. For the issues of (4) prostitution, pornography and polygamy are intimately related natural parts of life. And feminism impacts on all three in highly negative ways for the human race, particularly women and children, as a whole. To return to morals, the purpose of life is not moral behavior but enjoyment. Yet enjoyment (or (2) contentment) is not possible without morale. And morale is not possible without a confident expectation that other people will engage in gene- rally moral behavior. For morals are rules for getting along in society and help build morale and community between and amoung people. In the West, our moral relativity is leading to ever-greater losses of morale and, consequently, our will to survive is more and more weakened. Osama bin Laden has said that the West is " rootless, cosmopolitan, superficial, materialistic (and) racially mixed... ". And I dont disagree with him,especially as most of our ailments are self-inflicted by people with good intentions (all feminists,I think) who produce terrible results. But as to "racial-ly mixed", I say to him that he is also racially mixed. As an Irishman, I am a Celt. And I will recount some of the -ancient- history of the Celts : We were an ancient warrior people before Christ was born, thousands of years before. We traveled the world and left our seed eveywhere there was a pretty (or not) woman...and that includes the Arab,Turkish,Persian,Indian,Uzbek,Kyrgiz,Kazak,Azari,Turkmen,Tatar,Mongol...peoples. Indeed, the proto-Celtic language is similar to archaic Egyptian, Berber, Semitic... and was in Iran/Persia, Afgha-nistan, India ( p-Celtic is very much like Sanskrit )...by 1500 BC. So I beg to differ with a sadly misinformed Osama bin Laden. As for Iran's President, I point to the same facts and ask him -as an academic- to deny them.His protestations that Iran does not have homosexuality like America does are quite right and praiseworthy -although Iran's methods of effecting such are homicidal and horrendous. In The Westchester Times Tribune (as above noted) there are two articles that I will exerpt and comment on : The first, by Bob Weir, is titled " Shaped By Our Faith " and in it,there is the question " Do you believe in God ". In passing, I note that there is a difference between the "more" that is/must be "God" and the particular 'God' of any particular religion in its doctrinal formation and dogmas - or of religions/ ways of being, behaving and believing that dont believe in any 'God' , or which believe in many 'gods'. Moreover, I state that religions, like cultures and anything else human, are formed and shaped by climate, general temperatures and weather,elevation above sea level (mountains...), nearness of the sea, large bodies of water, kinds of food available... And this applies to even the most sophisticated religions, even though very subtly. And, as far as I'm concerned, evolution is"God-at-work". At its best, any -and all- religion is wholesome and contains the 5 moral principles noted above ( taken from The New York Times -as noted ). What is "good" ? And what is "bad" ? We all agree on basic morality but not necessarily on its implementation ( [5] "purity", "sanctity" ) - and therein lies the problem with the so-called " Clash of Civilisations ". But,on the other hand, all language is shaped by "faith" and, in itself, is also a kind of faith, just like culture. Hezi Aris wrote " To Each In His Own Time ", a very deep and seemingly convoluted and confusing work -that is very good,nevertheless. But here I note my 4-part scheme. If we dont (1) survive, we can not be (2) contented enough to contemplate "God" or the (3) motion/change/ 'eternal' present within which we live or the uniqueness of women, the (4) prostitution-pornography-polygamy dimen- sion (see jewsyonkersislam #s 416,417...)... For women are not like men but are as indispensible to future and presently-lived life as men are. And on this last issue,I mention Betty Frieden and her book ( "The FeminineMystique" ? ) that really ignited the feminist movement. She wrote about the"emptiness" of women's lives after WW II, the sense of "hopelessness". But she got the diagnosis and cure all wrong. That emptiness and hopelessness had more to do with the problems we face today where the earth's population has grown so large that there is no room for children to grow up and mature and -in addition- we are killing ourselves through wars and environmental backlash. Because women have been grossly misinformed about things by feminism,we aren't doing what we should do to rectify our real problems. And,by follo-wing feminism, all women are not just immoral but a-moral, as well. And, even worse -as men follow women in matters of morality but are far worse, women have magnified the content of gross immorality in the world today enormously. The best way to kill a people or a nation is to kill or break down the men because then women will break their backs, fruitlessly, carrying the responsibility that men cant or wont shoulder. And isn't that what feminism has done -and continues to do ? What we need are dreams, hopes and goals for the future, whether that future is tomorrow or the far future. And I submit that the dream of the human race expanding to other worlds is the only logical dream and goal for today. Of course, rituals help us experience the future today. Politics, religion, morale, happiness, contentment, hope...they're all related.Hezi wonders whether we will ever be able to understand the " anger behindthe actions " of the terrorists (suicide bombers) who flew the planes into the World Trade Center on 9/11. But he might as well ask the motivation behind any of the thousands of suicide bombers today ( Islamic or not ). Without in any way condoning such, I submit that the current perilous condition of the planet earth and the human race -as discussed throughout this work- plays the biggest ,(though unconscious/ subconscious) role. Furthermore, all these incidents are warnings of the dire future we face -just like Betty Friedan's ( and all womens' ) intuitions- if we dont work together to secure more room for the human race to expand on. One thing I find very interesting is Hezi's mention of " self-made " rules,in the sense, I think, of "do your own thing" as long as you can get away with it.And Hezi was lamenting such hypocrisy - and I agree with him. But it struck me particularly because I just read " The Koran " last week and Muhammed mentions hypocrites throughout the book. In truth, we need morality and morals to restrain the excessive natural selfishness that is a part of human nature in order to ensure the survival and flourishing of the human race ( and,of course,of our individual selves). And "religions" do form repositories of those 5 general moral principles I first mentioned. But the actual subconscious content of religion -that which gives religion its great motivating force- is the family. For the subconscious emotional memorycontent and residue of the best times of the best times of our lives -when we were young and loved and cared for by our families- gives religion its power and its motivating force. Our so-called "civil rights" would be as nothing if we are dead because we too much pursued them to the exclusion of communal rights. And that is exactly what the ultra-liberal community, the feminists,gays,lesbians and other pursuers of lunatic and degenerate notions are engaged in. Good intentions can be no excuse if what you are doing is too much enabling the destruction of the human race. The course of the human race for the last few centuries has been in the direction of ever-greater individual rights. But today it might be more prudent to start emphasizing communal rights -particularly the survival of the human race. I have been a member of the NYCLU since at least 1990,when Norm Siegel,then President, came to my defense when the Yonkers City Council first tried to stop me from speaking before the Council. So I am not opposed to the ACLU.Indeed, I support the intent behind what they do. But, for reasons expressed throughout, I think their focus is all wrong for the realities of today. Their excessive focus on individual rights to the exclusion of communal is not only wrong, not only immoral,not only amoral but is counterproductive as well, leading-as it is- to the destruction of the entire human race. Just looking at the composition of the Board of the Westchester branch of the NYCLU, I note that Arlene Popkin is the President ( she used to be in Legal Aid when I was a defense attorney in the Family and Criminal Courts of the Bronx); the executive director is Linda Berns (she came to my aid when Yonkers tried to stop me from speaking before the Council a few years back - until she found out that I was ant-feminist,anti-gay,anti-lesbian... and she dropped me like a hot potatoe); Mayo Bartlett is on my email list for whatever I put out. Faith Evans, if she is the one who wrote that article denouncing young black men for wearing pants hanging half-way down their rear ends, would probably agree with just about everything I say; Winston Ross I know from my earlier days in Yonkers protesting Judge Sand's work -Winston used to be President of the NAACP;Joann Prinzivalli is a confused man whose confusion has been made even worse by feminist nonsense ( he used to comment on my comments on the Lower Hudson/Journal News blogsite -until the Journal News banned me from commen-ting), SUCH AS WHAT THIS BRANCH OF THE NYCLU IS FAMOUS FOR.

If Chelsea objects and demands the photos removal, which I (hopefully) doubt, Nino should replace the photo with one of himself striking the same pose as in the photo alongside Chelsea's silhouwette, below which should be the attorney's letter and any written demand of Chelsea. The domineering nature of the Clinton's should be kept in the public's view.